Opinion of Military

[HardWorkingDem]

How do you feel about the military?

[Erika]

1. Positive opinion of our troops

and damn their bureaucratic commanders.

[uppityperson]

2. what do you mean by "the military"?

how do I feel about signing up for the military, how do I feel about the performance of the soldiers in our military in Iraq, how do I feel about having a military in general, ??? Too many options here.

[Downtown Hound]

3. A necessary institution

filled with many good and brave people. But it has been corrupted from its purpose of defending our nation and perverted into a global imperialist force. At this point I think the most noble thing one can do is refuse to serve. Or if they choose to serve, refuse to fight in this illegal and immoral war.

[uppityperson]

4. very good answer, seems like you covered most everything

good job.

[bemildred]

6. Excellent.

Those who serve deserve our respect and consideration. Those who have led us into this mess deserve the dustbin of history, after a fair trial at the Hague.

[primative1]

5. Question too vague for me ..

Opinion of what?
Is it tough and battle ready?
Is it used and abused?
Do we spend too much on it?
I will abstain.

[Totally Committed]

7. Define what you mean by "the military", please....

as it is now, the OP is completely disrespectful of all the young men and women who have died in this illegal war, and the wars that came before that kept this country free. Crimes committed by bad apples, or manipulated young people while in uniform is completely different from the Psy-Ops/NSA/CIA hard-core operatives sent in to do "a job". Night and day difference, actually.

So, please define more clearly...

TC

[HardWorkingDem]

24. Please tell me how I am "completely disrespectful" for this question?

My interest was in finding out if Du'ers have a positive or negative feeling toward the military. That's it.

I guess I could have placed down all sorts of selections, but did not. One reason why, was usually DU'ers will give thoughtful explanations to how and why the feel the way they do.

But please explain how this is a disrespectful question?

[Totally Committed]

33. I took your OP as disprespectful, because

I read an implication there (perhaps it wasn't really there... or perhaps it was unintentional) that the millitary -- read: ALL miltary -- are not worthy of respect. If I was wrong, most certainly I do apologize, but having had 3 of my kids serve their country in the military, one in Vista, and one in the Peace Corps, and having two sons-in-law who are veterans, I can tell you that I have a great deal of respect for those who do public service to their country. I am saddened with and sensitive to the anti-military posts and threads here at times.

Is that enough of an explanation for you? Again, I apologize if it was not your intent to start a thread that was critical of ALL the military, but it's just the way it seemed to me.

TC

[HardWorkingDem]

38. Thanks for answer, appreciate it...

No, my intent was not to slam the military; I was curious what the general opinion of the military is around DU. I'm also a military veteran. Didn't want to throw in a lot of answers, but probably should have even though I assumed DU'ers would have offered opinions of how they feel.

[Totally Committed]

42. Bless you,

and thank you for your service.

TC

[Joey Liberal]

8. I am a Veteran, but I've lost a little respect for the military

I love our troops, don't get me wrong. My main gripe is with senior officers and senior NCO's. They were so eager to go to war in Iraq, and now look at what has happened. It's Vietnam all over again, only worse.

[Jai4WKC08]

11. Back in 2002 and early 2003

Almost everyone was "eager to go to war in Iraq." Weren't the polls showing over 80%? I don't think you can blame the soldiers, NCOs and officers for being eager. They believed what they were told about WMD, links to al Qaeda, that it would be a "cakewalk," that we'd be fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. Hell, some of 'em still believe that last one.

As a vet, you should know it's hard, especially for military leaders at all levels (the "grunts" are usually smarter), not to believe in what they're doing. How could you live with yourself sending young American men and women to die, causing the deaths of God knows how many Iraqis, if you couldn't convince yourself there was a purpose? There have actually been suicides by officers and NCOs; they don't get much media coverage.

Military people are just as subject to believing what they choose to believe as anybody else. How much more likely when their psychological health or even life depends on it?

I've been dissappointed more of the very senior officers, esp the guys in the Pentagon, didn't resign early on when it became clear the troops were being used and abused. Of course, now we know a few did; they just didn't go public with it. But more of them should have.

But on the other hand, there's a very long-standing tradition that the civilians tell the military where to fight. It's a good tradition. Critical even, to our system of government. As a retired officer myself, it's hard for me to judge the generals in charge too harshly for sticking to that tradition.

[Joey Liberal]

12. You are correct

I agree with everything you wrote. It's the generals and command level senior NCO's (E-9's) that I was referring to as well. It's just hard for me (and I've been a civilian for many years now) to watch these troops cheer for President Bush, when in my opinion, he has done a lot of harm to our military and our country.

I salute you sir, for your service!

[Jai4WKC08]

19. Well, you can't go solely by the cheering troops

Maybe in the beginning. But commanders have always cherry-picked who gets to attend a visit from a higher commander. No one wants to be embarrassed in front of the boss. When it's the commander-in-chief visiting, especially THIS commander-in-cheif, I suspect who gets to stand in camera-view is scrutinized at the highest levels. Remember how closely they controlled who could get in to campaign events? I'd be very surprised if control wasn't many times tighter with the troops.

And too, it's sort of natural for troops to cheer the commander-in-chief. Bill Clinton was probably the least popular president with the military in history (not that he deserved it). But he was also cheered when he went to visit troops. Jimmy Carter wasn't incredibly popular (altho nothing like Clinton), but I was at Ft Hood when he came to call and everyone pretty much jumped thru their ass, voluntarily, to make sure his visit went well and he was given all the honors his office called for.

One big difference tho. Neither Clinton nor Carter used the troops to make themselves look good.

Btw, it's "ma'am." ;)

[Joey Liberal]

21. Very Good Points, Mam

I have a lot of respect for female officers. So, I salute you again, Mam!

I also find it strange that the military despised Clinton so much. Yet, they are quiet concerning W. I live right near Ft. Sill, and I still remember all of the angry letters-to-the-editor from veterans, retirees and active duty types. They hated the man.

I remind my right winger pals (many of them retired FA officers/NCO's) that it is Bush that has closed bases and reduced the Field Artillery - during wartime (the first President to do so during wartime). They don't seem to mind.

You experienced the Army from an officers viewpoint. I saw it from E-1 to E-5. I saw lot's of incompetent officers that only cared about one thing - the next highest grade. And I saw plenty of NCO's that went right along with them. The good CO's were few and far between. I get the sense that you were one of the good ones.

[Jai4WKC08]

23. Aw shucks...

That "mam" shit is all ancient history. But thanks for the kind words. As in most units, you could have found members of my company command who would have told you terrible things. But a fair number asked me to reinenlist them, several even after my change of command, so I feel pretty good about it.

I never could really figure out why so many military people feel the way they do about Clinton, but give Bush a pass (not so much anymore, but for a while there he could do no wrong).

I think part of it was that Clinton was the first president in living memory who had not served, had in fact evaded service. No worse than Bush43, but it's always harder for the first. And I think part of it was the almost universal love of Reagan, because there was this idea that Carter had done the military wrong, with all the internal troubles after Vietnam, and Reagan brought deserately needed pay raises, as well as new weapons and other hi-tech gear (much of it R&D's during the Carter years, but the troops don't see that). And Bush41 presided over the first Gulf war, and we won handily and mostly the military was treated with a lot of respect. The Clinton years saw the post-Cold War draw-down and the Somalia fiasco, both of which were set in motion by Bush41, but they only saw the effects under Clinton. And finally, you really had the rise of right-wing talk radio right in that same time frame, so these people were told over and over about what a schmuck Clinton was, and how he "hated" the military, and on and on.

Most very senior officers (way above my pay-grade) had no problem with Clinton. I had one 3-star tell me that he was the best thing that could have happened to the military. Because he was smart enough to know what he didn't know, and let us do our jobs. But for the middle-grade officers and the NCOs, most of whom really don't know what goes on at the top levels, but who make up the bulk of the professional armed services, it was a whole 'nother story.

[HardWorkingDem]

27. Clinton disliked because of these reasons....

I was in during Clinton's election. And the "gays in the military" was a huge part of the military's dislike for Clinton. (A quick funny story - one day in the day room while waiting for a formation to start CNN was doing a report on Clinton and gays in the military. While it was on, male soldiers were bitching about having some man look them up and down in the shower. When the story finished, a good looking woman CNN anchor came on and then all the comments about wanting to see her naked and other lewd comments started flowing out. Many made by the same people who were just a few seconds ago complaining about being viewed in a shower.)


Clinton's draft history didn't help, nor did the letter he wrote where he stated he "loathed" the military.

Hell, these people didn't even really care that Clinton ended up getting them the greatest pay raise in a generation.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. You're right about the gays in the military thing

I forgot that bruhaha. Altho it always seemed to me that a lot of the reaction was ramped up by the right-wing media. That may be just a case of my being out of touch with the attitudes in male-only units, which quite frankly were always a little more regressive, owing I think to the way young males gathered together in groups tend to reinforce, well... typically young male behavior. I'm not sure I'm explaining that very well... Suffice it to say I never saw as much severe anti-gay prejudice in the mixed units I was in, or in the officer corps, even among the officers who were fairly conservative.

You're also right about that letter where it was reported that Clinton had said he loathed the military. I was alluding to that when I said "hates" the military. Fwiw, in Clinton's auto-bio, he gives the text of that letter and he never said that he loathed the military, but that's what went around. Again, right-wing media (in this case, mainstream too) fueled the fire, but the audience was already receptive to believe the worst.

One other incident I remember was when some Clinton staffer dissed some general within the White House. Don't remember the details of that one, and I'm not sure what I heard was true in any case. Don't know if that story made it out to the troop level, but you can bet it made the rounds within the Pentagon, where I was stationed at the time. Hardly the first time some civilian functionary was disrespectful to some military guy, but again, you already had a predisposition to believe the worst of anything associated with Bill Clinton.

[Jai4WKC08]

34. Another point about senior officers and NCOs

I wrote above, "I've been dissappointed more of the very senior officers, esp the guys in the Pentagon, didn't resign early on when it became clear the troops were being used and abused. Of course, now we know a few did; they just didn't go public with it. But more of them should have."

The reason I included, and now add emphasis to, "the guys in the Pentagon" is because I can totally understand an officer in command, or command sergeant major, first sergeant etc, who might disagree with the war, or question it, or see that his/her subordinates aren't getting the support they need, and still not resigning in protest. I think that if I had been in that position, I would have seen it as running out on my guys, and not living up to the obligation I have to them. And since it takes a certain amount of self-confidence to become a senior leader, officer or enlisted, I probably would think I was best able to bring them home alive.

Mind you, I'm not giving Tommy Franks a pass here. I don't know him, never served with him, but I sure haven't been impressed with most of what he's said and done since his retirement. And it sure seems to me that he should have stood up to Rumsfeld and said, we're not going to do it this way, and if you make me, then I'm outta here (altho I will give him that it's a lot easier to see that in hindsight). But if he and other generals at the top buckled, when they knew it was wrong, for glory or promotion or a place in the history books, I don't think there's much excuse for that.

But for a commander or command sergeant major at corps, division or lower level, or even a senior staff officer or NCO, who might have seen what was happening and went along anyway, I can understand why they did and I don't think it should be held against 'em. It's a whole lot different for the guys back in the Pentagon who could have resigned, as some did, and not be sending any subordinate into harm's way where they weren't willing to go themselves.

[sutz12]

9. Sorry, I had to vote negative

It'll be fucked up for many years to come after this "War."

[FrenchieCat]

10. Me, I have a negative opinion of this administration.....and of the

dreadful decisions made by the civilian leadership of our military.

In fact, I loathe the civilian leadership of our military....while I suggest that our soldiers reflect a microcosom of our society- Some Great, most good, a large segment marginal and a few bad...

I find your poll to be one as dimensionally stoopid as something that would show up on Fox and on CNN....in where there really is no answer provided to reflect a rational view.

To even encourage a blanket pronouncement on our military by the way of this black and white poll is not useful.....at all. :thumbsdown:

[HardWorkingDem]

26. Thanks for the "dimensionally stoopid" reply.....

I get so sick and tired of fellow Du'ers insulting other Du'ers....

But this sentence a pretty good one....


"In fact, I loathe the civilian leadership of our military....while I suggest that our soldiers reflect a microcosm of our society- Some Great, most good, a large segment marginal and a few bad..."


And says a great deal.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Ok and thanks on the last part,

But know that on the first part, if you were to reread what I wrote......I called "the poll" dimensionally stoopid and as something that would show up on CNN or Fox.

I did not call you or any DUer stoopid.... :shrug:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VolcanoJen]

14. Ever consider enlisting?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VolcanoJen]

17. What branch?

Were you deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan?

[Joey Liberal]

22. I did, and it was a great experience!

I can't say that it was always fun and easy, because it wasn't. But what a great experience. I can't imagine going through life without that experience. And the best friends I ever made where the buddies I had in the Army.

[Greyhound]

15. Overall I lean slightly negative. Not toward the members, but to

its inevitable growth in size and power. After all, it is an organization with only one purpose, to smash things and kill people. Everything else is a waste of their talents and can be done better and cheaper by others trained to carry out those tasks.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jai4WKC08]

20. That's right-wing garbage

The idea that the military has "only one purpose, to smash things and kill people" is what the Rush Limbos of the world used to say, to argue against nation-building and peace-keeping missions.

Fact is, the US military has always had many purposes. Only the first is defense and deterance--the idea that if we're good enough at smashing and killing, we won't have to. But our military has been used in "operations other than combat" for most of our history. And no, those operations cannot usually be done better by civilians, Maybe cheaper, but only if you consider the cost of recruiting, training and providing benefits to the soldiers. If you have to cover those costs for the civilians, as you suggest, then the cost becomes comparable.

In any case, you have to ask, who protects the civilians in a potentially hostile environment? How can the civilians be held accountable for how they treat the local populations? Who controls how civilians interact with foreign governments and non-governmental organizations?

I would submit that the record of Halliburton and the other profiteers in Iraq would prove that civilians are not necessarily either better or cheaper.

[Greyhound]

41. That is the purpose of any military, the only reason for its existence.

Professional engineering firms design and build superior infrastructure, Peace Corps is much better at delivering humanitarian aid, independent civilian authority is far better at investigating and prosecuting crime, etc.

The military has one mission and one mission only, the effective and timely delivery of ordinance.

So what's so right wing about that?

[Jai4WKC08]

43. What's right wing about that?

Well, the main thing that's right wing is that it was the right wing that came up with the phrase in the first place. And not just the wing-nuts. I remember Jeane Kirkpatrick saying essentially the same thing in a Readers Digest article after Clinton was elected. It started up after Somalia, and they did it to criticize Clinton for his use of the military for peace-keeping and nation-building in a post-Cold War world.

The other thing, altho maybe not "right wing," is that it's just not true. Sorry if you think it is, but you need to study your military history more. The military had long been used for what is called "operations other than war," going back to shortly after the Spanish American War. Furthermore, the military has always trained for the full range of missions they are assigned, and they involve far more than delivering ordinance. Even the type unit mission statement included in Tables of Organization and Equipment (official doctrine) call for more than just traditional war-fighting roles.

There are certainly many circumstances where civilian agencies and companies are better able to do what is sometimes required of military units. But there are MANY circumstances in which they cannot. Or will not. Or cannot be counted on, in the case of private companies, to complete the job if the going gets tough.

[Greyhound]

46. I live in AZ, a land just full of Army Corps of Engineer projects

and therefore see, on a daily basis, the results of their work. They are suitable for very specialized, temporary, or emergency projects (I don't know of any other organization that can get a 1/2 mile runway down in a couple of hours), but they are not suitable to build the new terminal @ Sky Harbor.

My opinion is not reserved for the US military alone, that's just the one from my country. Look at the results when we do ask the military to carry out these types of missions, generally it ends in disaster. I didn't deny that they have been used for other operations, I merely assert that they are frequently not the best suited to carry those operations out.

BTW I am also from a military family and I have heard the "smash things and kill people" line my whole life, so I know it wasn't invented by the RW nut-bars.

[HardWorkingDem]

25. My Intent for Question.....

With all that is going on with our military, I was wondering how DU'ers feel toward the military. Whether they have a positive feeling toward the military or not.

I purposely left it vague because there are so many variables in a question like this and I thought Du'ers would add any comments they felt necessary. Many have left excellent replies.

As for myself, I have a positive feeling toward the rank and file military, and great disgust toward the civilian leadership and what Bush had done.

I find it very troubling that for the longest time, when soldiers in Iraq were interviewed as to why they were there, our government have allowed them to believe it was for payback to 9/11. And I think recently there was another poll where many military people in Iraq still believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

BTW, I am a military veteran who was in the Gulf the first time around. My military experience is one of the things I would never give back.

[treestar]

28. I have a positive opinion of those genuinely serving their country

but a negative opinion of those individuals who believe their service allows them to dictate our opinions to us.

Like "I went and served in (war)" so you ought to agree with my opinion that(war) is necessary.

IOW, those who use their service to try to establish themselves as some sort of upper class over all us females and males who weren't the right age at the right time to serve in whatever war.

[Jai4WKC08]

32. I think it's human nature

For people to say, "I've done this, and my opinion is that, and you have no right to disagree with me because you haven't been there." Military veterans have no monopoly on the tendancy to dismiss the opinions of people who haven't had the same experiences.

Otoh, I do think military experience, especially in a war zone but also peace-time service, is in many ways unique and different from anything else a citizen can do. So the perspective of the veteran ought to be paid a little more attention to in respects that pertain to that experience.

But I also recognize that every person has some experience or background that gives him a different perspective worth giving additional weight in forming my own views. For example, I am white, so when a black person tells me about racism in America, I think I owe it to him or her to listen more carefully than I would to another white person. He has had way more direct exposure to racism than I can ever know. That's not to say I have to agree with him on everything, but his opinion counts more.

I also expect men to give me more credance on issues that affect women... not that many of them do. ;)

I don't quite buy your argument, if that's the right word for it, that some people just weren't the right age at the right time. I entered active duty in 1977, right out of college, having joined ROTC in Jan 1973. The Vietnam war was essentially over when I signed my contract, but it was not a time when a lot of people wanted to be in the Army. And while women were being actively recruited (because of low enlistment rates for men), it wasn't exactly an easy time to be a woman in the Army either. But I did it anyway. If I'd only completed my original obligation, I might not have seen any "war" per se, but I'd still be considered a veteran and I would still have a set of experiences, and the knowledge that goes with them, that you don't.

I know some military veterans assume an air of superiority -- I'm probably guilty of doing that sometimes myself -- and I can understand if it's often offensive. But I also tend to think that SOME people (not saying you, treestar, since I don't know you) who react negatively to what they interpret as "dictating our opinions" may be feeling just a little bit of guilt for not having served the country in a uniquely difficult way (since there are many ways to serve, some even harder than military service) when they could have. Age has very little to do with it.

Footnote on that air of superiority and "dictating our opinions" thing... I definitely think the opinions of military veterans are worth more than the chickenhawks in our current administration. Ya know, I was actually banned from redstate.org for using the word "chickenhawk"? Right-wingers who have never served, which is the vast majority of them, definitely have a complex about it. And they should.

[treestar]

45. Some can't feel guilty, because they were female or too old

I have never been the right age in time of war - either too young or too old. Besides being female, though now not an obstacle.

Even a draft dodger of the Viet Nam era made up his own mind about it - he wasn't not defending the country, etc., he just had the guts to say when it wasn't really threatened he wasn't going to risk his life. A right individuals have, IMO.

Which is why I don't believe in the draft, because if the country is truly under a threat, people will volunteer. The right tries to make a faux threat and then label someone who points it out as a coward who wouldn't go over a real threat.

I would not have gone at any time, because there never was a threat. That's the reason I would not have gone at any of the times in my life. But being a female that is mostly irrelevant. But to me it is condescending when someone acts like their opinion some war is necessary is somehow to be regarded as sacred on the claim that they were once in the military - and even worse when it is females claiming they get that deference because their husband was killed in a war - and use that guilt card - you're free because I protected you, so you better support this war too, because I believe it's necessary, or you're ungrateful, yadda - usually it is a freeper-like tactic.

[riverrine19]

30. theres nothing wrong with the military

its the leadership thats in question,in my 61 years i had not seen the military in such disaray.true warriors do not like war.

[IndianaGreen]

35. There is no context to this poll

I will draw a parallel to the police. A lot of people have negative attitudes about the police or law enforcement in general, until they need a cop.

The context to the OP should include the military historical role, which is mixed at best, and its current role in Bush's Long War, a purely colonial one IMHO.

We also have to consider how our perceptions of the military are shaped by the mission they are tasked to carry out by their superiors, including their Commander-in-Chief.

[blondeatlast]

37. I was composing mine as you posted this. Spot-on.

There's no way a non-reactive person can answer honestly.

Edit: It's disturbing that so many have responded without considering this, too. :scared:

[adriennui]

44. and we shouldn't forget

that the military is the only option for many young, poor people.


you can't blame all for the few bad apples.

if that was the case i'd hate all germans or all muslims for the atrocities committed by a few.

[blondeatlast]

36. Won't/can't answer without more definition of "military." nt

[IndianaGreen]

39. The Way Americans Like Their War

Adding some context to this poll, here is The Independent's Robert Fisk on the US military. Fisk asks if Haditha is merely the tip of the mass grave:

Published on Saturday, June 3, 2006 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

The Way Americans Like Their War
by Robert Fisk

Could Haditha be just the tip of the mass grave?

The corpses we have glimpsed, the grainy footage of the cadavers and the dead children; could these be just a few of many? Does the handiwork of the United States' army of the slums go further?

I remember clearly the first suspicions I had that murder most foul might be taking place in our name in Iraq. I was in the Baghdad mortuary, counting corpses, when one of the city's senior medical officials, an old friend, told me of his fears. "Everyone brings bodies here," he said. "But when the Americans bring bodies in, we are instructed that under no circumstances are we ever to do post-mortems. We were given to understand that this had already been done. Sometimes we'd get a piece of paper like this one with a body." And here the man handed me a U.S. military document showing with the hand-drawn outline of a man's body and the words "trauma wounds."

What kind of trauma is now being experienced in Iraq? Just who is doing the mass killing? Who is dumping so many bodies on garbage heaps? After Haditha, we are going to reshape our suspicions.

It's no good saying "a few bad apples." All occupation armies are corrupted. But do they all commit war crimes? The Algerians are still uncovering the mass graves left by the French paras who liquidated whole villages. We know of the rapist-killers of the Russian army in Chechnya.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0603-27.htm

[Beacho]

40. I voted positive only because

It is like saying, "what is your opinion of hammers?". It is a necessary component of our government and it is not the problem. The real problem is the people controlling it and the people who elected these brigands that gives them that control.